[LA Times, 1988] Hearns Rejects Offer to Fight Nunn : Arum Says Fighter Spurned $2 Million

A fight I'd like to have seen at the time .or Leonard v Nunn.He was being touted as the next super star .
He looked the part blasting out Kalambay but then came the safety first performance against Barkley.
Looking back now , perhaps if they had faced each other ,it could have turned out like hearns v Hill ?
A great performance from Tommy with Nunn been shut out ?

 

Kalambay is the only guy on that list worth noting, and he isn't Hall of Famer, either.

Curry and Starling weren't middleweights, and they weren't Hall of Famers, either.

It's a fine record. Sort of like Keith Thurman beating Danny Garcia, Shawn Porter, Carlos Quintana, Diego Chaves, Luis Collazzo, Roberto Guerrero and Leonard Bundu.

Or Danny Garcia beating Amir Khan, Erik Morales (twice), Lamont Peterson, Lucas Matthysse, Zab Judah, Kendall Holt and Nate Campbell.

They've had nice careers, too.

And I wouldn't put Garcia or Thurman in, either.

 

First of all, Nunn and Curry never beat a Hall of Famer. So I wouldn't say their credentials are necessarily better than guys like McGuigan and Mancini who did.

I'm just saying where McGuigan and Mancini only beat one Hall of Famer (and McGuigan knocked off a great one to win his title), they also brought other things to the table that got them in.

I'm not saying I'd have voted for either. But I could understand when they did get in because I was around then and I remember what a big impact they had on the sport.

Nunn and Curry didn't beat any Hall of Famers and they didn't much of an impact at all on the sport. And on top of that, they weren't on top for very long at all.

They both won titles and had winning careers. I'm not slamming them. I'm just saying they weren't among the best EVER. That's all.

When they actually fought Hall of Famers, they not only lost, they ended up getting wiped out.

 

Curry was a helluva lot better fighter than McGuigan or Mancini. It's not even close.

 

Danny Garcia has more skills than both of them, too.

I wouldn't put him in. Would you?

Also, have any combatants ever stopped a war to watch Danny Garcia or Donald Curry fight? Has Danny Garcia or Donald Curry changed the sport of boxing as a result of one of their fights?

Donald Curry had more skills than Jack Dempsey, too.

Who cares. Curry doesn't have the wins. Curry wasn't a significant figure in the grand scheme of things.

You can appreciate someone's talent, but he didn't beat anyone to get in and he didn't impact the sport in another way to get in. So he shouldn't be in.

 

Wow are people saying that Kalambay isn't an atg?.

 

You know I think RJ would have maybe beaten him bit I seem to remember that Nunn was the number one contender and RJ never fought him. At light heavy I think?

 

Marlon Starling is an ATG.
Donald Curry is an ATG.
Kalambay for sure is an ATG.

Curry was the best welterweight in the WORLD for YEARS.

He beat Starling TWICE.
Knocked out unbeaten Mccroy to unify.
Knocked out Larocca when Larocca was being touted a big deal.
Beat the hell out of Colin Jones.
Moved up and took out Rosi when Curry was already a shot fighter.
Beat former champion Carlos Santos.
Beat former champion Lupe Aquino.

 

Garcia is irrelevant. You said "First of all, Nunn and Curry never beat a Hall of Famer. So I wouldn't say their credentials are necessarily better than guys like McGuigan and Mancini who did." I don't consider their boxing credentials better than Curry.

Citing Mancini and McGuigan beating hall of famers as reason for them being ahead of Curry really needs to be put into perspective.

Pedroza was at the point where he was not quite what he'd been tho he was still damn good. It was a great event and a top win for Barry. It is not a win that puts him over Curry's body of work however which tho shortish was longer than Baz's. His two wins over Starling (who showed himself to be the second best welter of his era and a superb one), unification over McCrory and his win over the tough Jones and speedy La Rocca are nothing to scoff at. Lets not forget that Azumah Nelson was the "other" featherweight champion when Barry reigned.

Mancini beating Chacon was totally expected and the odds if anything understated at 5-2. Chacon had just been in b2b fights of the year, both grueling affairs and one of them controversial in scoring. He was a very old worn 32 and moving up again in weight against a strong young champion.

Curry had more defenses than both combined and actually unified as well. He was also operating at an extremely high level as evidenced on film and rating.

I'm debating your comments per these two beating HOF's as something that matters not overall HOF. Argue all you like for McGuigan to be there via importance, for sure, but not Mancini so much.

He also had a better more impressive career than the two we are talking about which is all that matters boxing wise which is what i am responding to.

Curry had the wins to anex Barry and Ray on the boxing side of things. He was a significant figure for some time and certainly more significant pure boxing wise than the other two.

If they never makes it so be it i have no horse in the race. McGuigan being Irish, the time he fought, the intangibles, yeah understandable he's in for sure. Mancini had a couple of things, the change to 12 rounds etc.

Bottom line is that simply citing wins over the HOF'ers these two had as evidence they belong above Curry is ridiculous. Curry had a better career boxing wise than either. I remember you blasting Curry in previous threads and downplaying him a long way below the majority.

I see you've had this debate at length before -

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/donald-curry.533403/

 

You are absolutely right .. RJJ wanted nothing to do with Nunn.. at Super as well .. Look who RJJ fought after Toney .. Nunn was the fight !! as RJJ didn't want to take his belts overseas